July 13, 2014 2:34 pm at 2:34 pm #1206481July 13, 2014 6:36 pm at 6:36 pm #1206482old manParticipant
I read your post carefully and found that I agree with almost all of it.
Therefore, I would like to elaborate on, and even rephrase what I wrote.
I did not intend to claim that a community loyal to halachah “made a change”. Quite the contrary. If there was a “change made”, why do we not find one German posek who cites this change and explains it? We are met with German halachic silence, that’s why we are having this wonderfully civil discussion.
In any case, changes in minhag, even takanot, evolve over time, and are accepted in varying degrees in various locales over time. Even a cut and dried takanah like Rabeinu Gershom’s outlawing bigamy, was not accepted immediately, but was gradually accepted in most places over a few generations or more.In many areas it was only partially accepted. It takes time. For the record, it is highly likely that Rabeinu Gershom’s takanot were mostly not decreed by him, but that’s a separate topic.
In essence, your comments strengthen my theory. This gradual change over time (50 years? 100 years?) was so gradual that it never happened by psak or decree or halachic decision. Otherwise, we would have known when, how and by whom. There would have been some sort of halachic discourse. But there is none.
It could very well be that the six hour European minhag was not iron clad ,the fact that the Rama thinks it’s a good idea testifies that it was not uniformly practiced in his time. If so, the Mizmor L’Dovid’s referral to meal intervals (If I remember correctly, the Pri Chadash says sholosh oh arba sha’ot?)would fit my theory perfectly. Same for the Chayai Adam’s wonderfully ambiguous “aizeh sha’os)
So I’ll rephrase and I hope this is an improvement. There was as yet no clear cut axiomatic number of hours in Europe, with many keeping six and many less than six. In Germany the change in meal times did not allow for more than three, and so eventually, over several generations, the German minhag was set to three, while the rest of Europe gravitated towards the Rama’s preference for six. The Germans, not feeling bound by the Rama, and never considering six because that just didn’t work into their lifestyle, settled into three-ish. Eventually, people defined the minhag by the specific time period of three hours, but that was for the convenience of setting a defined time interval. Of course, according to my theory, it just as well could have developed into four, or two, or two and a half. It just didn’t turn out that way, or as I say it, it happened by sociological necessity and convenience. And that is why it slid into general practice under the radar of the written psak.
In conclusion, this is my theory and everyone is welcome to accept it or reject it. It will definitely remain a halachic curiosity.July 13, 2014 8:55 pm at 8:55 pm #1206483
That’s a more plausible presentation of your theory, which is an interesting one.
It does remain a curiosity; a number of poskim have written to that effect.July 13, 2014 11:22 pm at 11:22 pm #1206484benignumanParticipant
I like this version of your theory as well. I was just positing that Rabbeinu Yerucham might be the reason the minhag eventually settled on 3.July 14, 2014 10:16 am at 10:16 am #1206485old manParticipant
I think we analyzed this enough. To Daas Yochid, Sam and Benignuman,
thank you for your comments. To Benignuman I say, I still reject the Rabeinu Yerucham as a source, but then I am left with a gnawing feeling. Assuming it’s a typo, but what a typo! Any other single letter typo would easily have been recognized as a mistake and thrown out. How coincidental is it that the typo is a gimel davka? Is it just that if you add a regel by mistake to a vav it becomes a gimel? I have no satisfying answer. Maybe you are right after all. And maybe one day a scholar will find a tshuva in some archive that will shed light on it.July 16, 2014 3:21 am at 3:21 am #1206488
YW Moderator-42 wrote:
We find in this week’s parsha, that the kohen uncovers the hair of the sota. If hair is a true erva, then wouldn’t this be a problem? Especially to then say hashem’s name in her presence.
The Mishna states (Sotah 1:4) that the Kohen also uncovers the woman’s upper body, which is certainly a “true erva”.
How he can then say the Shem Hashem in front of her is a good question.
We can say that he is commanded specifically by the Torah to do so, just as usually one would not be allowed to uncover erva.July 16, 2014 11:07 am at 11:07 am #1206490
(Okay, that stayed up. Now let’s try this.)
YW Moderator-42 wrote:
I have a question about the idea of covering hair:
Why is there a difference between a married and single woman? By every other erva, it either is or isn’t and doesn’t matter what the woman’s marital status is.
I read in a Jewish source (I don’t remember where, but it might
have been one of Gila Manolson’s books) that a woman becomes more aware of herself as a woman with marriage, and her hair reflects this, and it becomes more attractive to men as a result.July 16, 2014 4:28 pm at 4:28 pm #1206491
A single girl is supposed to be attractive. The hair aids to this cause. By an Eishes Ish, this is a problem and is Erva. Hair, although it adds beauty, does not evoke lowly feelings of pure Taava and Pritzus. Think of the difference between dressing up and its opposite.July 17, 2014 2:01 am at 2:01 am #1206492
HaLeiVi – It has the same halachos as any erva, which seems a little strong for the reason you mention.July 17, 2014 2:54 am at 2:54 am #1206493
So does an Etzba Ketanna.July 20, 2014 8:35 am at 8:35 am #1206494
“So does an Etzba Ketana”[have the same halachos as an erva].
You refer, no doubt, to the ma’amar that if one gazes at the etzba ketana of a woman, it is as he if he has gazed bimkom hateiruf.
But that is not a halacha of an erva. I am referring to such halachos as a man not being allowed to say devorim shebikdusha
if he can see it, and a woman not being allowed to go out with it exposed – none of which apply to an etzba ketana.
A married woman’s hair, however, does have these halachos, just as does, say, a woman’s arm from the elbow up.July 20, 2014 1:55 pm at 1:55 pm #1206495
You are right. It is not the same thing and therefore does not have the came Halacha. However, what we do see from there is that the situation is not black and white.
Erva is about Hirhur. This is why Tefach Ba’Isha Erva and Kol Ba’Isha Erva. This is why in some instances we say Libo Gass Bah and there is no Erva. The difference is that some things cause an attraction to the person, to like the person, while other things evoke thoughts of a very specific nature.
Anything of the second type its Assur by anyone. But what causes a general likeability to the person is a good idea for a single girl and an Erva by an Eishes Ish.July 20, 2014 10:18 pm at 10:18 pm #1206497
It should be noted that R’ Moshe and the Aruch Hashulchan both did make halachic distinctions between hair and other erva.July 24, 2014 10:17 pm at 10:17 pm #1206498benignumanParticipant
The pashtus is that the din that a married woman must cover her hair is not because of erva, and it is specific to a married woman outside of her home (learned out from Sotah).
There is a separate halacha that hair is erva, meaning that it can provoke hirhur and saying kriya shema in front of it would be a problem.
Why then are people not makpid to avoid davening in front of single girls’ hair? According to the Aruch HaShulchan and R’Moshe Feinstein, when the Gemara in Berachos says “the hair of a woman is erva” that means that “the hair of a woman could be erva.” Meaning, the Gemara had just said tefach b’isha (in areas normally covered) is erva. I might have thought that this only applied to actual skin, k’mashma lan that it applies to hair (and singing) as well.
But this halacha of erva only applies to areas that are normally covered. So in a society where single girls do not cover their hair, their hair will not especially cause hirhur and will not be erva. But married women are required to cover their hair whether or not it has the status of erva.July 25, 2014 7:24 am at 7:24 am #1206499
DaasYochid: Would those distinctions be about the din if a woman (or women in general) does not usually cover her hair?July 25, 2014 7:56 am at 7:56 am #1206500
And when you see someone with uncovered hair it becomes obvious that she must be single and the Hirhur dissipates because if so it’s the Derech. ?????December 30, 2016 4:34 pm at 4:34 pm #1206501LightbriteParticipant
Bump pleaseDecember 30, 2016 5:42 pm at 5:42 pm #1206502gavra_at_workParticipant
lightbrite – Why do you want this bumped?December 30, 2016 5:58 pm at 5:58 pm #1206503zahavasdadParticipant
Because its a Minhag for “Rosh Hashanah”December 30, 2016 6:00 pm at 6:00 pm #1206504HashemisreadingParticipant
this is a great thread. I enjoyed reading. thank you wallflower.December 30, 2016 6:19 pm at 6:19 pm #1206505MenoParticipant
I don’t understand. Is this thread supposed to be about confusing halacha, minhag, chumra, and shtus with one another, or is it about halachos, minhagim, chumros, and shtusim that are confusing?December 30, 2016 7:43 pm at 7:43 pm #1206506iacisrmmaParticipant
Memo: this is why I am against bumping old threads. Try to read through 200 old posts to figure it out.December 31, 2016 11:09 pm at 11:09 pm #1206507Lilmod UlelamaidParticipant
Meno, it’s supposed to be about confusing halacha, minhag, chumra and shtus with one another. Unfortunately, some of the posters giving examples seem to be very confused themselves regarding which things are halacha and which are chumra.
Lightbrite, I also would like to know why you bumped this.January 1, 2017 12:14 am at 12:14 am #1206508LightbriteParticipant
I just tried opening a new thread but it looks like it’s been closed.
I want to know what’s halacha vs minhag vs chumra.
Is it halacha to only light two Shabbat candles per person/family? And that you must light two?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.